The rise in cases of gun violence and related incidences of assault has drawn the public to the issue of guns and gun control. Such has been evident within the spheres of politics especially with the last election period seeing the incumbent president Donald Trump suggesting on stringent gun control laws. However, despite the acknowledgment of the need to have better gun laws, much ground and consensus has never reached. Such, to an extent, contributed to the current lack of political goodwill within the country to have the necessary legislations enacted to facilitate the same on the controls (Grandy 23). Of the guns under question are the assault rifles. Like the military weapons, assault rifles have a destructive potential to causing
Americans are faced with a big issue of violence in the streets, these streets where elderly people are beaten for their money and women are attacked and raped. Sadly, some people believe that the best way to deal with these violent occurrences is to pass gun control laws that take away legally owned guns from everyone. Not only does gun control end up disarming the innocent but it also violates the Second Amendment. By taking away guns from the American citizens, whom the Second Amendment bestowed onto us this act violates our rights. Unfortunately for those who have legally armed themselves for self-defense, gun control would eventually strip away their ability to fend for themselves. Gun control will also end up causing a rise in crime. By taking away arms from good law abiding citizens and leaving them defenseless, it makes things much easier for criminals by knowing that their victims are not armed. Although the gun ban would take away guns from stores, a criminal will find a way to get their hands on one, imagine that. Gun controls are taking away our rights as citizens. If a law abiding citizen happens to enjoy hunting, they will lose that right. Gun controls are also taking away weapons from citizens. Gun control is not having a positive effect on America because it violates the second amendment, takes away rights and it won’t reduce the crime rate.
Gun Control has been an issue that has been brought to the public’s eyes in recent years. This main issue has been going on for many years, for example when John F. Kennedy was assassinated; it raised public awareness to the lack of control on sales and also possession of guns in America. Until 1968 guns were available over the counter in stores and through mail catalogs to just about any adult in America. This was an example of how loosely guns were regulated which bring us back to the issue of guns. The constitution tells us in the second amendment that we, as American Citizens, have the right to bear arms. But the government is trying to change that by regulating everything to do with owning a gun. My stance: Gun
Many of us assume we must either oppose or support gun control. Not so. We have a range of alternatives. Even this way of speaking oversimplifies our choices since there are two distinct scales on which to place alternatives. One scale concerns the degree (if at all) to which guns should be abolished. This scale moves from those who want no abolition (NA) of any guns, through those who want moderate abolition (MA) - to forbid access to some subclasses of guns - to those who want absolute abolition (AA). The second scale concerns the restrictions (if any) on those guns that are available to private citizens. This scale moves from those who want absolute restrictions (AR) through those who want moderate restrictions (MR) to those who want no
From my perspective, there should be mandatory helmet laws throughout the United States. I have witnessed the injuries and losses of lives from those involved in accidents. Some wore helmets and some did not.
Across the United States there have been many shootings and attacks. The most recent being in San Bernardino California where 14 innocent lives were taken. Most of these shootings are in schools, state buildings, movie theatres etc. Every public mass shooting in the USA since 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. There are ways to end these people going on killing sprees once and for all. Many law abiding citizens are experienced and comfortable with a firearm. Imagine these people being able to take their concealed weapons into places that are now “no gun zones”. This would act as a deterrent against the people who go on killing sprees. At the least, law abiding citizens
Scholarly Essay: Gun Control There has been considerable debate recently in Canada over the issue of gun control. The Canadian parliament enacted the Firearms Act to enforce gun control by requiring gun owners to register their firearms. Just recently, the government of Alberta lead in a charge, including five other provinces and numerous pro-gun groups, complaining that the law is unconst...
The consensus with regards to drug laws favors more stringent and draconian laws, with the attempt to stifle use and punish crime. There are many claims used against drug legalization, such as, moral degradation, crime, the destruction of inner cities; along with families, diseases, such as AIDS, and the corrupting of law enforcement. When one examines the effects of prohibition, one has to inquire: has the cost been worth it? Certainly, an argument for the abolition of prohibition doesn’t include the favoring of drug use, but merely recognizes the vain and utopian attempt to control individual choices. Along these lines, the unintended consequences of these attempts may preclude any benefits. Further, one has to wonder: are these laws—at
Mill claims that his purpose in writing on liberty is to assert what he describes one very simple principle. The principle that ought to govern society and that principle has come to be known as the harm principle. The individuals own good either physical or moral is not a sufficient warrant for societal intervention. The individual cannot rightfully be compelled to do or not to do because it will be better for him to do so because it is better for him to do so because it will make him happier.
Drugs are a very big problem in the world and many deaths are caused by the wrong use of drugs, overdose and suicide. Everywhere you look people are affected by them and a lot of discussion over the drug issue occurs daily. Most of the people tend to drugs because they want to change something about their lives. They think drugs are a solution, so they use it as a way to escape from their problems or to relax or to just fit in the society. But eventually, the drugs become the problem. And the consequences of drug use are always worse than the problems one is trying to cope with them. Many people today calling for the legalization of the drugs especially the most widely used prohibited substance in the United States – Marijuana. People don’t
Drug legalization is an enduring question that presently faces our scholars. This issue embraces two positions: drugs should not be legalized and drugs should be legalized. These two positions contain an array of angles that supports each issue. This brief of the issues enables one to consider the strengths and weakness of each argument, become aware of the grounds of disagreement and agreement and ultimately form an opinion based upon the positions stated within the articles. In the article “Against the Legalization of Drugs”, by James Q. Wilson, the current status of drugs is supported. Wilson believes if a drug such as heroin were legalized there would be no financial or medical reason to avoid heroin usage;
This principle pertains to the idea that one is harmed when their individual liberties are taken away from them. We have discussed the examples of stealing and hitting another individual as being that warrant merit in this principle. Based on the idea that these two actions have harmed the liberties of the individual, Mill would agree that they should be outlawed. Today we see these illegal actions as almost innate as opposed to our government displaying paternalistic action. Additionally, the harm principle represents the idea that an individual should be allowed to make any choice they want to without interference (from whatever ruling organization) as long as that decision can only inflict harm on themselves. Mill would agree that as you step outside the bounds of harming just yourself to harming anyone else, you are restricting someone else’s liberty. Additionally, Mill’s idea of “harm” does not include emotional (say the grieving of a family after one decides to take their life). I agree completely to the first part of the harm principle in which an action that causes physical harm to someone other than the decisionmaker, that act should not be allowed. However, to the second in which harm seems purely physical, I do note a disagreement. Emotional harm is difficult to manipulate as justifying paternalistic action since there
Mill defines harm as any action or inaction by one individual that is injurious to the interests of others. He states that: “[when] a person’s conduct affects the interest of no person besides himself… there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences” (Mill,
My main disagreement with Mill’s Harm Principle is that indirect harm does not apply. Mill writes, “In many cases, an individual, in pursuing a legitimate object, necessarily and therefore legitimately causes pain or loss to others, or intercepts a good which they had a reasonable hope of obtaining (1009).” Who is he to say that while pursuing an object pain or loss is necessary at all? The definition of necessary, according to Webster’s Dictionary, is absolutely essential or needed to achieve a certain result or affect. I do not think that in any way it would be necessary to cause harm while trying to achieve a goal. There are so many ways to go about to achieve a goal without causing harm to someone. However, if for example, you and a coworker are in position for a promotion, you are both fighting against each other for the position, you receive the promotion and unintentionally hurt the other worker, and this harm caused does not put you at fault. If you did something evil or something that would purposely cause the individual to not get the promotion this is intentional and you should be placed at fault. In summary Mill believes that consequential harm will not apply to the harm principle; however I believe that the circumstances of the situation are very important in be able to consider whether or
I will first examine Mill’s “Harm Principle”, as well as his reasoning for it. The principle itself reads as follows: